skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Interactions between Energy Efficiency Programs funded under the Recovery Act and Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs

Abstract

Since the spring of 2009, billions of federal dollars have been allocated to state and local governments as grants for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and programs. The scale of this American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding, focused on 'shovel-ready' projects to create and retain jobs, is unprecedented. Thousands of newly funded players - cities, counties, states, and tribes - and thousands of programs and projects are entering the existing landscape of energy efficiency programs for the first time or expanding their reach. The nation's experience base with energy efficiency is growing enormously, fed by federal dollars and driven by broader objectives than saving energy alone. State and local officials made countless choices in developing portfolios of ARRA-funded energy efficiency programs and deciding how their programs would relate to existing efficiency programs funded by utility customers. Those choices are worth examining as bellwethers of a future world where there may be multiple program administrators and funding sources in many states. What are the opportunities and challenges of this new environment? What short- and long-term impacts will this large, infusion of funds have on utility customer-funded programs; for example, on infrastructure for delivering energy efficiency services or on customermore » willingness to invest in energy efficiency? To what extent has the attribution of energy savings been a critical issue, especially where administrators of utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs have performance or shareholder incentives? Do the new ARRA-funded energy efficiency programs provide insights on roles or activities that are particularly well-suited to state and local program administrators vs. administrators or implementers of utility customer-funded programs? The answers could have important implications for the future of U.S. energy efficiency. This report focuses on a selected set of ARRA-funded energy efficiency programs administered by state energy offices: the State Energy Program (SEP) formula grants, the portion of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) formula funds administered directly by states, and the State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program (SEEARP). Since these ARRA programs devote significant monies to energy efficiency and serve similar markets as utility customer-funded programs, there are frequent interactions between programs. We exclude the DOE low-income weatherization program and EECBG funding awarded directly to the over 2,200 cities, counties and tribes from our study to keep its scope manageable. We summarize the energy efficiency program design and funding choices made by the 50 state energy offices, 5 territories and the District of Columbia. We then focus on the specific choices made in 12 case study states. These states were selected based on the level of utility customer program funding, diversity of program administrator models, and geographic diversity. Based on interviews with more than 80 energy efficiency actors in those 12 states, we draw observations about states strategies for use of Recovery Act funds. We examine interactions between ARRA programs and utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs in terms of program planning, program design and implementation, policy issues, and potential long-term impacts. We consider how the existing regulatory policy framework and energy efficiency programs in these 12 states may have impacted development of these selected ARRA programs. Finally, we summarize key trends and highlight issues that evaluators of these ARRA programs may want to examine in more depth in their process and impact evaluations.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
Environmental Energy Technologies Division
OSTI Identifier:
1008331
Report Number(s):
LBNL-4322E
TRN: US201112%%539
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC02-05CH11231
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY; APPLIANCES; DESIGN; DOLLARS; EFFICIENCY; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; IMPLEMENTATION; INFUSION; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; PERFORMANCE; PLANNING; WASHINGTON DC; WEATHERIZATION

Citation Formats

Goldman, Charles A., Stuart, Elizabeth, Hoffman, Ian, Fuller, Merrian C., and Billingsley, Megan A. Interactions between Energy Efficiency Programs funded under the Recovery Act and Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs. United States: N. p., 2011. Web. doi:10.2172/1008331.
Goldman, Charles A., Stuart, Elizabeth, Hoffman, Ian, Fuller, Merrian C., & Billingsley, Megan A. Interactions between Energy Efficiency Programs funded under the Recovery Act and Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs. United States. doi:10.2172/1008331.
Goldman, Charles A., Stuart, Elizabeth, Hoffman, Ian, Fuller, Merrian C., and Billingsley, Megan A. 2011. "Interactions between Energy Efficiency Programs funded under the Recovery Act and Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs". United States. doi:10.2172/1008331. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1008331.
@article{osti_1008331,
title = {Interactions between Energy Efficiency Programs funded under the Recovery Act and Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs},
author = {Goldman, Charles A. and Stuart, Elizabeth and Hoffman, Ian and Fuller, Merrian C. and Billingsley, Megan A.},
abstractNote = {Since the spring of 2009, billions of federal dollars have been allocated to state and local governments as grants for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and programs. The scale of this American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding, focused on 'shovel-ready' projects to create and retain jobs, is unprecedented. Thousands of newly funded players - cities, counties, states, and tribes - and thousands of programs and projects are entering the existing landscape of energy efficiency programs for the first time or expanding their reach. The nation's experience base with energy efficiency is growing enormously, fed by federal dollars and driven by broader objectives than saving energy alone. State and local officials made countless choices in developing portfolios of ARRA-funded energy efficiency programs and deciding how their programs would relate to existing efficiency programs funded by utility customers. Those choices are worth examining as bellwethers of a future world where there may be multiple program administrators and funding sources in many states. What are the opportunities and challenges of this new environment? What short- and long-term impacts will this large, infusion of funds have on utility customer-funded programs; for example, on infrastructure for delivering energy efficiency services or on customer willingness to invest in energy efficiency? To what extent has the attribution of energy savings been a critical issue, especially where administrators of utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs have performance or shareholder incentives? Do the new ARRA-funded energy efficiency programs provide insights on roles or activities that are particularly well-suited to state and local program administrators vs. administrators or implementers of utility customer-funded programs? The answers could have important implications for the future of U.S. energy efficiency. This report focuses on a selected set of ARRA-funded energy efficiency programs administered by state energy offices: the State Energy Program (SEP) formula grants, the portion of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) formula funds administered directly by states, and the State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program (SEEARP). Since these ARRA programs devote significant monies to energy efficiency and serve similar markets as utility customer-funded programs, there are frequent interactions between programs. We exclude the DOE low-income weatherization program and EECBG funding awarded directly to the over 2,200 cities, counties and tribes from our study to keep its scope manageable. We summarize the energy efficiency program design and funding choices made by the 50 state energy offices, 5 territories and the District of Columbia. We then focus on the specific choices made in 12 case study states. These states were selected based on the level of utility customer program funding, diversity of program administrator models, and geographic diversity. Based on interviews with more than 80 energy efficiency actors in those 12 states, we draw observations about states strategies for use of Recovery Act funds. We examine interactions between ARRA programs and utility customer-funded energy efficiency programs in terms of program planning, program design and implementation, policy issues, and potential long-term impacts. We consider how the existing regulatory policy framework and energy efficiency programs in these 12 states may have impacted development of these selected ARRA programs. Finally, we summarize key trends and highlight issues that evaluators of these ARRA programs may want to examine in more depth in their process and impact evaluations.},
doi = {10.2172/1008331},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2011,
month = 2
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • End-use energy efficiency is increasingly being relied upon as a resource for meeting electricity and natural gas utility system needs within the United States. There is a direct connection between the maturation of energy efficiency as a resource and the need for consistent, high-quality data and reporting of efficiency program costs and impacts. To support this effort, LBNL initiated the Cost of Saved Energy Project (CSE Project) and created a Demand-Side Management (DSM) Program Impacts Database to provide a resource for policy makers, regulators, and the efficiency industry as a whole. This study is the first technical report of themore » LBNL CSE Project and provides an overview of the project scope, approach, and initial findings, including: • Providing a proof of concept that the program-level cost and savings data can be collected, organized, and analyzed in a systematic fashion; • Presenting initial program, sector, and portfolio level results for the program administrator CSE for a recent time period (2009-2011); and • Encouraging state and regional entities to establish common reporting definitions and formats that would make the collection and comparison of CSE data more reliable. The LBNL DSM Program Impacts Database includes the program results reported to state regulators by more than 100 program administrators in 31 states, primarily for the years 2009–2011. In total, we have compiled cost and energy savings data on more than 1,700 programs over one or more program-years for a total of more than 4,000 program-years’ worth of data, providing a rich dataset for analyses. We use the information to report costs-per-unit of electricity and natural gas savings for utility customer-funded, end-use energy efficiency programs. The program administrator CSE values are presented at national, state, and regional levels by market sector (e.g., commercial, industrial, residential) and by program type (e.g., residential whole home programs, commercial new construction, commercial/industrial custom rebate programs). In this report, the focus is on gross energy savings and the costs borne by the program administrator—including administration, payments to implementation contractors, marketing, incentives to program participants (end users) and both midstream and upstream trade allies, and evaluation costs. We collected data on net savings and costs incurred by program participants. However, there were insufficient data on participant cost contributions, and uncertainty and variability in the ways in which net savings were reported and defined across states (and program administrators).« less
  • We develop projections of future spending on, and savings from, energy efficiency programs funded by electric and gas utility customers in the United States, under three scenarios through 2025. Our analysis, which updates a previous LBNL study, relies on detailed bottom-up modeling of current state energy efficiency policies, regulatory decisions, and demand-side management and utility resource plans. The three scenarios are intended to represent a range of potential outcomes under the current policy environment (i.e., without considering possible major new policy developments). By 2025, spending on electric and gas efficiency programs (excluding load management programs) is projected to double frommore » 2010 levels to $9.5 billion in the medium case, compared to $15.6 billion in the high case and $6.5 billion in the low case. Compliance with statewide legislative or regulatory savings or spending targets is the primary driver for the increase in electric program spending through 2025, though a significant share of the increase is also driven by utility DSM planning activity and integrated resource planning. Our analysis suggests that electric efficiency program spending may approach a more even geographic distribution over time in terms of absolute dollars spent, with the Northeastern and Western states declining from over 70% of total U.S. spending in 2010 to slightly more than 50% in 2025, with the South and Midwest splitting the remainder roughly evenly. Under our medium case scenario, annual incremental savings from customer-funded electric energy efficiency programs increase from 18.4 TWh in 2010 in the U.S. (which is about 0.5% of electric utility retail sales) to 28.8 TWh in 2025 (0.8% of retail sales). These savings would offset the majority of load growth in the Energy Information Administration’s most recent reference case forecast, given specific assumptions about the extent to which future energy efficiency program savings are captured in that forecast. However, the pathway that customer-funded efficiency programs ultimately take will depend on a series of key challenges and uncertainties associated both with the broader market and policy context and with the implementation and regulatory oversight of the energy efficiency programs themselves.« less
  • Utility customer-supported financing programs are receiving increased attention as a strategy for achieving energy saving goals. Rationales for using utility customer funds to support financing initiatives
  • Cited by 1